Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.
As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
If you can't see that Johnson is merely virtue signalling for the benefit of the DUP, I am disappointed in you BigG.
The NI Protocol is a disaster, but it looked like a disaster way back in 2019 to us stop Brexit traitors.
I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.
I said all along that the Backstop, from which the Protocol evolved, would be a disaster but at least we're not in the Backstop now and at least the Protocol unlike the Backstop has a Safeguarding article in it.
If the Protocol is a disaster, then presumably you think the Safeguarding in A16 of the Protocol should be implemented? That is what it is there for, and it was surely wise of the Government to agree a deal that contained Safeguarding but only if they're prepared to use it.
Or is your position that the Protocol is a disaster but Safeguarding shouldn't happen because of reasons I'm not seeing?
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.
As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
If you can't see that Johnson is merely virtue signalling for the benefit of the DUP, I am disappointed in you BigG.
The NI Protocol is a disaster, but it looked like a disaster way back in 2019 to us stop Brexit traitors.
I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.
I am not disagreeing that Boris and the ERG, and not least Frost, agreed the NIP most certainly as an expedient to conclude Brexit but we are where we are and this has to be resolved
It is good Ireland is talking this morning of addressing the concerns over goods regulations and time to dial down the blame game from all sides and find a solution
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.
'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.
“It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.
They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.
The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'
Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position
I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.
Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.
In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.
1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing. 2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist" 3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"
Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.
Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
You have just posted absolute b****cks, but very eloquently.
It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.
I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.
At the moment it feels as though name recognition/incumbency is dominant. People are still thinking in Biden vs Trump terms and that potential re-run remains hard to call. Both are pretty unpopular, though IMO the viscerally anti-Trump group is larger than the fanatically anti-Biden group. Negative partisan voting (furiously voting to stop X) is a major factor in Western politics today. I don't think the Democrats will reject Biden unless it seeeems obvious that he'd lose to Trump and someone else will win.
O/T, another interesting Meeks piece, this time on cannabis:
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
I do not think it is undeniable. The majority of people in Northern Ireland back the Protocol, as does the business community there. The DUP is not a terrorist organisation and will not support violence in pursuit of its aims. There is no pressing need for anything other than further negotiation.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
Do we actually know exactly what HMG is about to legislate on and has anyone seen the detail?
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
It's claimed that the original popularity of string theory in the physics community was down to its having been considerably (or massively) cheaper to fund string research than anything else, since it's predictions couldn't be probed experimentally.
If Biden chooses to run, he ought to be odds on. The question is therefore, will he? I don't see anyone obvious who'd have a better chance in the General Election tbf.
It depends whether we reckon presidential incumbency effects are real but I think there are quite a few candidates who would be stronger than Biden in his current state, which may yet deteriorate: Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttiegeig, Amy KLOBUCHAR, Jared Polis...
The problem is that Joe Biden has to make the decision without knowing who the party would pick. I guess I'd rate it something like:
He retires before the primary and Harris becomes POTUS: Kamala Harris: 85% Left-wing challenger: 10% Electable person: 5%
He stays on but announces he won't run again Kamala Harris: 60% Left-wing challenger: 20% Electable person: 20%
Kamala Harris isn't a *terrible* candidate, and she might do better if she had Biden's team rather than her sister or whoever was running her primary campaign. But I think if you're Joe and you feel basically healthy, you feel duty-bound to stay on.
Worth thinking about this in relation to what else is happening.
There is a good chance the Ds get a shellacking in November - almost certainly they will lose the House, despite what has been an extraordinary successful gerrymandering campaign in D states (although the judicial ruling in NY State was a big blow). Good chance they will lose the Senate as well.
If that is the case, I cannot imagine Biden will want to go on for another term, especially given he is not in a great state of health. The D establishment knows Harris would get absolutely shafted in an election but the problem they have is that - ex-some sort of Agnew-style scandal - she is not the type to step aside. They also know that pushing out a Black / Asian woman - and one who is quite happy to tack hard left if that is what is needed to win the nomination - is not going to go down too well with the caucus.
So my guess is that they will write 2024 off, especially if they do poorly in November. It's worth noting that all the D other candidates mentioned above (with the possible exception of Polis) are tarred by the fact that they followed along with the left-wing antics and abandoned previously-held centrist positions, especially when it came to cultural issues. That is going to give the Rs plenty of material to work with, especially given the strong signs that swing voters aren't particularly enamoured re being told they're racist (if white) and / or the fact the Ds are losing Hispanic voters in drove. Buttegeig and Whitmer also both have negative factors against them (Pete B that he took 6 weeks parental leave in the midst of a supply chain crisis and Whitmer because of her handling of the CV crisis in Michigan plus the recent collapse of the trial of those accused of planning to kidnap her).
What does that mean for the candidate? I think Biden is too proud to lose, especially against Trump, so he won't win re-election. The D establishment will think it's better to let Harris be the candidate and lose 2024 so that she is out of the system. The real interesting question would be the VP pick for the Ds in 2024 because that will give an insight into who they think could win in 2028 post-Trump's 2nd term.
Yes, I think Trump will run again. I don't think he should but, given what is happening with inflation, the cost of living crisis etc, I think the temptation will be too great for him. Other R candidates will take the view they can wait until 2028 so best not to oppose him and instead try and get the VP pick (I think Trump would go with DeSantis, and I suspect DeSantis will already have a view on whom he would have as running mate in 2028).
Mid-terms don't predict presidential elections, see this from 538:
Nobody can accurately predict presidential elections years out, nobody is going to be writing one off in advance on the grounds that it's unwinnable.
Biden already watched Obama get destroyed in the mid-terms then go on to win convincingly, I can't see why he'd get disheartened by the loss that everyone expects.
The one thing I would say about the mid-terms is that if you've had a fairly catastrophic performance across the board, anyone who does win has their stature greatly enhanced. This is why I think it's worth watching Stacey Abrams: She could plausibly win Georgia with the help of Trumpists refusing to back Brian Kemp. That would give her a great story to go up against Harris if she was audacious enough to run for the next job when she'd only just got the current one.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
Do we actually know exactly what HMG is about to legislate on and has anyone seen the detail?
The cynic in me wonders if hinting they may unilaterally rip up the Protocol with legislation (but not actually saying it) is an Overton Window move to get people who opposed Article 16 invocation to be outraged and suggest no that is what A16 is for, so that A16 can then be invoked as a mainstream moderate option of working within the Protocol rather than an outrageous ripping up of the Protocol as many extremists have been trying to portray it as before now.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.
As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
If you can't see that Johnson is merely virtue signalling for the benefit of the DUP, I am disappointed in you BigG.
The NI Protocol is a disaster, but it looked like a disaster way back in 2019 to us stop Brexit traitors.
I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.
I said all along that the Backstop, from which the Protocol evolved, would be a disaster but at least we're not in the Backstop now and at least the Protocol unlike the Backstop has a Safeguarding article in it.
If the Protocol is a disaster, then presumably you think the Safeguarding in A16 of the Protocol should be implemented? That is what it is there for, and it was surely wise of the Government to agree a deal that contained Safeguarding but only if they're prepared to use it.
Or is your position that the Protocol is a disaster but Safeguarding shouldn't happen because of reasons I'm not seeing?
The backstop was a substantially more sensible option which I opposed. But I was not alone, so did Johnson.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
Do we actually know exactly what HMG is about to legislate on and has anyone seen the detail?
The cynic in me wonders if hinting they may unilaterally rip up the Protocol with legislation (but not actually saying it) is an Overton Window move to get people who opposed Article 16 invocation to be outraged and suggest no that is what A16 is for, so that A16 can then be invoked as a mainstream moderate option of working within the Protocol rather than an outrageous ripping up of the Protocol as many extremists have been trying to portray it as before now.
It looks like Renault jumped before being pushed. They sold their 70% stake in AvtoVAZ to some shady Russian government institute. Production will continue under the reborn Moskvitch brand. Just what we were all waiting for. Renault also have an option to buy it all back after it inevitably all goes to dogshit.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
I do not think it is undeniable. The majority of people in Northern Ireland back the Protocol, as does the business community there. The DUP is not a terrorist organisation and will not support violence in pursuit of its aims. There is no pressing need for anything other than further negotiation.
Leading to/Causing serious societal difficulties is an interesting one.
There are serious societal difficulties in NI but that has been the case all my lifetime. Is A16 actually causing the current ones or being used as a prop to highlight them?
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.
As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
If you can't see that Johnson is merely virtue signalling for the benefit of the DUP, I am disappointed in you BigG.
The NI Protocol is a disaster, but it looked like a disaster way back in 2019 to us stop Brexit traitors.
I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.
I said all along that the Backstop, from which the Protocol evolved, would be a disaster but at least we're not in the Backstop now and at least the Protocol unlike the Backstop has a Safeguarding article in it.
If the Protocol is a disaster, then presumably you think the Safeguarding in A16 of the Protocol should be implemented? That is what it is there for, and it was surely wise of the Government to agree a deal that contained Safeguarding but only if they're prepared to use it.
Or is your position that the Protocol is a disaster but Safeguarding shouldn't happen because of reasons I'm not seeing?
The backstop was a substantially more sensible option which I opposed. But I was not alone, so did Johnson.
Johnson was right to oppose it. It was a massively worse option and thank goodness we avoided that unmitigated disaster.
The backstop was a catastrophe waiting to happen as there was no legal unilateral exit from it. No safeguarding A16 clause or majority vote to leave it. We would have been legally trapped within it with no legal way out.
The Protocol has A16 and a Stormont vote as two alternative unilateral methods to change it. That is infinitely superior in every possible way.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.
'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.
“It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.
They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.
The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'
Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position
I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.
Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.
In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.
1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing. 2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist" 3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"
Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.
Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
So why is the government proposing to legislate to override the Protocol rather than invoking Article 16?
Because sometimes the threat is enough? Remember how negotiations suffered in 2017-18 because the Remainer parliament wouldn't allow the government to use "no deal" as a threat?
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
In Northern Ireland, the two are rather closely linked.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
You're making the mistake of arguing this is about legality, logic or what is best. NI politics is about power. That is all. And f*** business too.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
It's claimed that the original popularity of string theory in the physics community was down to its having been considerably (or massively) cheaper to fund string research than anything else, since it's predictions couldn't be probed experimentally.
Cosmic strings are testable. They are strongly constrained, as they radiate and distort the cosmic microwave background.
String theory (M-theory) became so popular because the single most talented and influential figure of the past 50 years in theoretical physics convinced everyone they should be working on string theory.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")
The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
Cauldron seems to be largely a translation of the German kessel, a term very 'salient' in that part of the world 78 years ago.
I've lowered my expectations of R4 a lot over the years but I'd expect the listenership to have a clue about salient (adj) and salients (n).
As an aside, I just asked Mrs J and she had no idea of the military meaning of the word. True, she isn't a native English speaker, but she probably knows more English words than I do...
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
Its possible to argue that the DUP killed the Good Friday Agreement on Friday by not allowing a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
You're making the mistake of arguing this is about legality, logic or what is best. NI politics is about power. That is all. And f*** business too.
Northern Ireland is prospering thanks to the unique economic advantages that the NI Protocol gives it - access to both UK and EU markets. Manufacturing is expanding and food inflation is lower. Of course all of this is intensely damaging to the UK government and DUP since it illustrates that Northern Ireland is prospering as a result of it being spared the worst impact of Brexit and integrating more closely with the Republic and the EU single market - and hence puts into sharp relief what a disaster Brexit is for GB. The Northern Irish population know that the protocol is working to protect them which is why most of them voted for parties that support it. The government is now proposing to undermine those economic advantages simply because they are embarrassing to them and the useful idiots in the DUP. Shameful stuff.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.
'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.
“It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.
They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.
The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'
Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position
I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.
Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.
In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.
1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing. 2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist" 3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"
Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.
Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
So why is the government proposing to legislate to override the Protocol rather than invoking Article 16?
Because sometimes the threat is enough? Remember how negotiations suffered in 2017-18 because the Remainer parliament wouldn't allow the government to use "no deal" as a threat?
As no-one can point to a solution that suits all parties what happens is that the show is kept inconclusively on the road until some new factor intervenes. Over the island of Ireland this has been the case for (I would say) 100 years, others would say since Henry II. This is merely the latest iteration.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
It’s worth noting that he is 100% aligned with the view of the government (with one exception below)
- the GFA should be protected - The protocol is the best way forward - It needs to operate as intended - The EU is imposing its rules without a risk based approach or looking for solutions - their proposals actually make things worse - Equivalence is the core of any solution
Where he disagrees (I have some sympathy with his belief, but I don’t believe the EU will respond to “patient diplomacy”) is around the tactics of threatening use of article 16
The government are widely seen as weaponising the issue for domestic political reasons. That's not likely to help reach accommodation with the EU. Benn also has the small advantage he didn't lie repeatedly to the NI electorate about a deal he signed.
Technically neither did Boris - it shouldn’t require a “border down the Irish Sea” of the EU stuck to its side of the agreement.
And Boris-haters in the media will say what they say and the EU may believe them, but that’s not the government’s fault.
Basically the issue remains that the EU Commission has fetishised their rules over letting the RoI and UK work out a compromise
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
The main problem as I see it is that the European Union have a dual role both as trading bloc, but also by Ireland's membership a party to the GFA. The Good Friday agreement deserves credit in reasonably balancing the two sides with checks and balances, for the political sake of peace. For the NI border this puts the EU in an unusual position of equality in a trade negotiation, which they have wholeheartedly ignored.
The key issues this creates are wholly disproportionate levels of border checks, and a refusal to pragmatically look at monitoring regimes. It would be reasonable to have high levels of checks if there were serious issues around smuggling but data monitoring, and police support could be used to mitigate these risks. As noted by Benn there are some goods that quite frankly need not be checked more than routinely, and any border checks should be targeted, and frankly intelligence led.
The EU needs to take a much more pragmatic approach, and the government and its stooges like Rees Mogg need to shut up about burning the protocol, and both do more about De-escalating diplomatic disagreements. To be fair to the government they have always advocated a pragmatic approach, and I think there needs to be a significant shift in the EU position to recognise the equality in the negotiation otherwise they are endangering the GFA.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
It’s worth noting that he is 100% aligned with the view of the government (with one exception below)
- the GFA should be protected - The protocol is the best way forward - It needs to operate as intended - The EU is imposing its rules without a risk based approach or looking for solutions - their proposals actually make things worse - Equivalence is the core of any solution
Where he disagrees (I have some sympathy with his belief, but I don’t believe the EU will respond to “patient diplomacy”) is around the tactics of threatening use of article 16
The government are widely seen as weaponising the issue for domestic political reasons. That's not likely to help reach accommodation with the EU. Benn also has the small advantage he didn't lie repeatedly to the NI electorate about a deal he signed.
Technically neither did Boris - it shouldn’t require a “border down the Irish Sea” of the EU stuck to its side of the agreement.
And Boris-haters in the media will say what they say and the EU may believe them, but that’s not the government’s fault.
Basically the issue remains that the EU Commission has fetishised their rules over letting the RoI and UK work out a compromise
Agree with all of this except the last bit - the EU Commission has fetishised their rules to prevent the RoI and UK working out a compromise.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
Its possible to argue that the DUP killed the Good Friday Agreement on Friday by not allowing a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
Within the terms of the GFA that is the DUP's prerogative, just as Sinn Fein kept Stormont from operating for years as the lead party from the nationalist community until McGuinness and Paisley were able to sort out their differences for a few years.
The same needs to happen now. That requires pragmatism and compromise, of which the obvious solution is as it has been for five years no alignment, no border anywhere, as even Benn is now proposing recognise equivalence instead and deal with smuggling if it happens in a tactful manner that doesn't threaten security or the GFA.
The Democrats can see and hear. Thus Biden will not be the pick. The excuse could be the investigations into Hunter if they bear fruit, or just increasing the volume on fitness for office. 30% is wildly optimistic imo.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
You're making the mistake of arguing this is about legality, logic or what is best. NI politics is about power. That is all. And f*** business too.
Northern Ireland is prospering thanks to the unique economic advantages that the NI Protocol gives it - access to both UK and EU markets. Manufacturing is expanding and food inflation is lower. Of course all of this is intensely damaging to the UK government and DUP since it illustrates that Northern Ireland is prospering as a result of it being spared the worst impact of Brexit and integrating more closely with the Republic and the EU single market - and hence puts into sharp relief what a disaster Brexit is for GB. The Northern Irish population know that the protocol is working to protect them which is why most of them voted for parties that support it. The government is now proposing to undermine those economic advantages simply because they are embarrassing to them and the useful idiots in the DUP. Shameful stuff.
It is difficult to prove that this shows anything with regards to GB. If NI didn't have a dual role it wouldn't be so attractive to manufacturing investment. This enables it to leverage both the EU and UK wide trade deals, which is a change to the pre-Credit position for the whole UK.
This seems to me to be the main benefit of the protocol.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
But removing the "Irish Sea border" between NI and GB will also result in a diversion of trade - that between the Republic and Wales.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
Its possible to argue that the DUP killed the Good Friday Agreement on Friday by not allowing a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
Its possible to argue that the voters killed the Good Friday Agreement on Thursday by voting in a Sinn Fein First Minister knowing the DUP would not allow a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.
The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.
The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.
Article 16 will do that.
But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.
That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.
Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.
But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
No, I’m saying legislating to override the Protocol is tearing it up. Invoking Article 16, whether spuriously or not, is working within it.
So should Article 16 be invoked in your eyes? Since we are surely undeniably in a position whereby the application of the Protocol is leading to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade".
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
No it isn't. It's causing political difficulties.
What is the difference between a political difficulty and a societal difficulty in your eyes?
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
A societal difficulty is serious rioting, poverty or other economic troubles. Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly. Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements. The DUP losing the election is.
What "business favours" is neither here nor there, if diversion of trade is happening then that is a trigger met for unilateral actions by either the UK or EU governments. So you accept the trigger threshold has been met then?
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
But removing the "Irish Sea border" between NI and GB will also result in a diversion of trade - that between the Republic and Wales.
In which case the EU would have the prerogative of invoking Article 16 if they so chose. That is their right in as much as it is Britain's too.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Which will we get first? a. a unified theory of physics b. a resolution of NI politics c. the heat death of the universe
(you can of course add a popular resolution of UK-EU and NI-rUK trading rules and a female Labour leader to that list....)
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")
The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
Cauldron battle is I think from High Military Germanic Kesselschlacht. A battle of envelopment to trap large forces in a pocket or Kessel. One way to do it is to make deep attacks either side of a projecting salient in the enemy line as indeed was attempted in the Battle of Kursk, Kursk Salient.
I used to think "the Bulge" was a region or river in Belgium.
There was a girl at my school called Sally Firth. She was really slutty so we called her Sally Forth.
I was really hoping she’d get pregnant so I could call it the Battle of the Bulge.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
Once we have SF governments in the 26 and 6 counties then a reunification referendum is inevitable. I think a lot of English tories will count getting rid of the 6C as one of the precious few Brexit benefits.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
To be fair, at lest AIUI, under the GFA SF were not supposed to be the lead party in the Assembly. Nor was there supposed to be a significant bloc in the Assembly which said 'a plague on both your houses'! Remnd me, which group dislikes each other the most; DUP vs UUP or DUP vs SF?
A disappointing poll for both main parties. Maybe slightly worse for the reds because they'd expect to be more than 3% ahead after 12 years of Tory or Tory-led government.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Which will we get first? a. a unified theory of physics b. a resolution of NI politics c. the heat death of the universe
(you can of course add a popular resolution of UK-EU and NI-rUK trading rules and a female Labour leader to that list....)
On a purely parachial level I'll add e. A new stadium for Bath Rugby and f. Stonehenge properly bypassed (whether tunnel diversion - don't care). Locals to me will understand. I worked at the Pub in Winterbourne Stoke in the mid 90's and the owner moved out, so convinced was he that the bypass was coming, That's 30 years of trade he missed out on so far...
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
It's claimed that the original popularity of string theory in the physics community was down to its having been considerably (or massively) cheaper to fund string research than anything else, since it's predictions couldn't be probed experimentally.
Cosmic strings are testable. They are strongly constrained, as they radiate and distort the cosmic microwave background...
There are arguments about that, but certainly for most of its existence, string theory has not led to any big money experiments, which was the point.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
Its possible to argue that the DUP killed the Good Friday Agreement on Friday by not allowing a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
Its possible to argue that the voters killed the Good Friday Agreement on Thursday by voting in a Sinn Fein First Minister knowing the DUP would not allow a speaker to be appointed which resulted in no Northern Ireland Executive resulting in direct rule from London.
No it is not, because that is the GFA working as planned. In the past, Stormont has been suspended for years by the UUP (not DUP) or Sinn Fein refusing to cooperate.
A disappointing poll for both main parties. Maybe slightly worse for the reds because they'd expect to be more than 3% ahead after 12 years of Tory or Tory-led government.
No. That 19% LD/Green vote will split for the reds in a squeeze in the marginals.
Received a nice well below inflation yearly pay rise from my employer today. Beers not on me.
As ever, moving jobs is the only way to get a decent pay rise these days - even with the labour market being what it is.
I really don't understand it at all, as the cost to recruit and train a new employee must exceed the cost of giving decent pay rises.
Perhaps they have done a cost benefit analysis on it and concluded most people will simply stick it out at their jobs rather than look for a new one. But surely even then they will be the less motivated ones...
Received a nice well below inflation yearly pay rise from my employer today. Beers not on me.
Keep your eyes on the prize. In general terms, big rises are most likely when switching firms or at least departments but that is for the future.
Keep your own "ego" folder into which you stash any praise or congratulations you receive, and note any minor successes you have had. Keep a copy (possibly on paper) at home as well. This is for when you need cheering up but also for when you need to apply for a new position, internal or external, at short notice. Keep two versions of your cv up to date for the same reason: one inward-facing; one for outside jobs.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
Nope.
The fact that the GFA is a balancing act between two very diverse communities is the issue.
if it wasn't Brexit then to quote someone sensible earlier they would "find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on" with or without Brexit.
Received a nice well below inflation yearly pay rise from my employer today. Beers not on me.
Keep your eyes on the prize. In general terms, big rises are most likely when switching firms or at least departments but that is for the future.
Keep your own "ego" folder into which you stash any praise or congratulations you receive, and note any minor successes you have had. Keep a copy (possibly on paper) at home as well. This is for when you need cheering up but also for when you need to apply for a new position, internal or external, at short notice. Keep two versions of your cv up to date for the same reason: one inward-facing; one for outside jobs.
I’m ok - I have a training contract with a big pay rise from September - its my colleagues who don’t.
R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'
Ffs.
For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.
Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:
Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
I see.
Somehow the PB confluence of the GFA/TCA/NIP and string theory seems rather apt...
Which will we get first? a. a unified theory of physics b. a resolution of NI politics c. the heat death of the universe
(you can of course add a popular resolution of UK-EU and NI-rUK trading rules and a female Labour leader to that list....)
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
Nope.
The fact that the GFA is a balancing act between two very diverse communities is the issue.
if it wasn't Brexit then to quote someone sensible earlier they would "find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on" with or without Brexit.
Please find a subject to talk crap about that you do have knowledge on rather than a sensitive one that you have about as much insight into as the average amoeba.
Received a nice well below inflation yearly pay rise from my employer today. Beers not on me.
Keep your eyes on the prize. In general terms, big rises are most likely when switching firms or at least departments but that is for the future.
Keep your own "ego" folder into which you stash any praise or congratulations you receive, and note any minor successes you have had. Keep a copy (possibly on paper) at home as well. This is for when you need cheering up but also for when you need to apply for a new position, internal or external, at short notice. Keep two versions of your cv up to date for the same reason: one inward-facing; one for outside jobs.
internal cv should list eg all projects completed on which one was a team member/leader - very useful aide memoire when doing job applications. Doesn't have to be the actual oine sent out, just as a starting point.
And always keep a paper copy of every annual/periodical review final report, disciplinary review (even and esp if one is the one doing the disciplining), etc. (this also in case of trouble). Some of this may have to be kept at work alone for obvious confidentiality reasons.
Obvs telling GG to suck eggs, but I'll say one more thing from personal experience, it can be surprising looking back and finding how much one's mood is coloured by the immediate current situation.
A disappointing poll for both main parties. Maybe slightly worse for the reds because they'd expect to be more than 3% ahead after 12 years of Tory or Tory-led government.
No. That 19% LD/Green vote will split for the reds in a squeeze in the marginals.
I'd have thought most of the Green vote is located in safe Labour seats. But it could flip a few marginals.
Traditionally CDU voters often give their second vote to the FDP, to make sure that they get into parliament where they can support a CDU led administration - you can see this in the 2017 vote for the NRW parliament:
CDU first votes 38.3% second votes 33.0% FDP first votes 8.6% second votes 12.6%
(Another explanation of these differences could be that the first vote is the tactical one, and it is FDP supporters voting for the local CDU candidate because they have a chance of winning, but see what happened in 2022).
It is the second (party) vote that is important, as it decides how many seats each party gets.
In 2022: CDU first votes 36.6% second votes 35.7% FDP first votes 5.5% second votes 5.9%
So a big part of what happened was CDU voters deciding not to lend their party votes to the FDP any more. I assume this is because federally the FDP are now in a coalition with the SPD and Greens - people tend to pay more attention to national politics, even though the state parliaments are quite important (and this was a big election NRW - is 18 million people).
Another part is probably that the FDP can attract some "protest" votes when in federal opposition that they lose when they become part of the national government. Especially when what they agree to in government is very different to their rhetoric in opposition.
Interestingly, the SPD in 2022 "lost" 2.7% from 1st to 2nd votes - but maybe not to the Greens who only increased by 0.4%. Instead the big winners were the Tierschutzpartei who got only 0.1% of 1st votes (no doubt they didn't run many candidates) but 1.1% of 2nd votes.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Indeed, and with the business community beginning to come out of cover and say that HMG are outright lying - the NIP is great for the economy, as per that Graun story I referenced earlier.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
Traditionally CDU voters often give their second vote to the FDP, to make sure that they get into parliament where they can support a CDU led administration - you can see this in the 2017 vote for the NRW parliament:
CDU first votes 38.3% second votes 33.0% FDP first votes 8.6% second votes 12.6%
(Another explanation of these differences could be that the first vote is the tactical one, and it is FDP supporters voting for the local CDU candidate because they have a chance of winning, but see what happened in 2022).
It is the second (party) vote that is important, as it decides how many seats each party gets.
In 2022: CDU first votes 36.6% second votes 35.7% FDP first votes 5.5% second votes 5.9%
So a big part of what happened was CDU voters deciding not to lend their party votes to the FDP any more. I assume this is because federally the FDP are now in a coalition with the SPD and Greens - people tend to pay more attention to national politics, even though the state parliaments are quite important (and this was a big election NRW - is 18 million people).
Another part is probably that the FDP can attract some "protest" votes when in federal opposition that they lose when they become part of the national government. Especially when what they agree to in government is very different to their rhetoric in opposition.
Interestingly, the SPD in 2022 "lost" 2.7% from 1st to 2nd votes - but maybe not to the Greens who only increased by 0.4%. Instead the big winners were the Tierschutzpartei who got only 0.1% of 1st votes (no doubt they didn't run many candidates) but 1.1% of 2nd votes.
Now the FDP are in a centre left government with the SPD and Greens, clearly yes many of their voters being free market liberals rather than social democrats gave their second votes to the CDU now they are led by the conservative but pro business Merz and the CDU voters did not give their second votes to the FDP now they are in an opposition alliance in government
A disappointing poll for both main parties. Maybe slightly worse for the reds because they'd expect to be more than 3% ahead after 12 years of Tory or Tory-led government.
No. That 19% LD/Green vote will split for the reds in a squeeze in the marginals.
I'd have thought most of the Green vote is located in safe Labour seats. But it could flip a few marginals.
I would think so too. However. Some of it is perhaps a NOTA preference rather than Green per se. Difficult to say where that bit is, nor how it will break at a GE. Lib Dem too.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
Nope.
The fact that the GFA is a balancing act between two very diverse communities is the issue.
if it wasn't Brexit then to quote someone sensible earlier they would "find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on" with or without Brexit.
Rubbish, the Good Friday Agreement worked in the first case because the UK and Ireland were both in the EU.
Traditionally CDU voters often give their second vote to the FDP, to make sure that they get into parliament where they can support a CDU led administration - you can see this in the 2017 vote for the NRW parliament:
CDU first votes 38.3% second votes 33.0% FDP first votes 8.6% second votes 12.6%
(Another explanation of these differences could be that the first vote is the tactical one, and it is FDP supporters voting for the local CDU candidate because they have a chance of winning, but see what happened in 2022).
It is the second (party) vote that is important, as it decides how many seats each party gets.
In 2022: CDU first votes 36.6% second votes 35.7% FDP first votes 5.5% second votes 5.9%
So a big part of what happened was CDU voters deciding not to lend their party votes to the FDP any more. I assume this is because federally the FDP are now in a coalition with the SPD and Greens - people tend to pay more attention to national politics, even though the state parliaments are quite important (and this was a big election NRW - is 18 million people).
Another part is probably that the FDP can attract some "protest" votes when in federal opposition that they lose when they become part of the national government. Especially when what they agree to in government is very different to their rhetoric in opposition.
Interestingly, the SPD in 2022 "lost" 2.7% from 1st to 2nd votes - but maybe not to the Greens who only increased by 0.4%. Instead the big winners were the Tierschutzpartei who got only 0.1% of 1st votes (no doubt they didn't run many candidates) but 1.1% of 2nd votes.
Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.
At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.
Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.
The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them. And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).
The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.
I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway
It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position
Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.
'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.
“It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.
They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.
The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'
Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position
I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.
Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.
In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.
1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing. 2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist" 3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"
Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.
Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
You have just posted absolute b****cks, but very eloquently.
This reminds me of a postcard from Provence I once got - obviousluy about the local culinary specialities. This was a large heaped plate of a certain kind of offal, beautifully presented on a posh plate, lots of parsley, silverware, ironed tablecloth, etc.
Received a nice well below inflation yearly pay rise from my employer today. Beers not on me.
Keep your eyes on the prize. In general terms, big rises are most likely when switching firms or at least departments but that is for the future.
Keep your own "ego" folder into which you stash any praise or congratulations you receive, and note any minor successes you have had. Keep a copy (possibly on paper) at home as well. This is for when you need cheering up but also for when you need to apply for a new position, internal or external, at short notice. Keep two versions of your cv up to date for the same reason: one inward-facing; one for outside jobs.
I’m ok - I have a training contract with a big pay rise from September - its my colleagues who don’t.
Still mean to deprive you of your due ration of Newky Brown.
On NI, it strikes me that even if a resolution to the current impasse is found that is acceptable to the DUP, the DUP will then find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on now that Sinn Fein is the largest party. Nothing achievable will ever be enough for them. So I'm not sure that we should kowtow to a party that seeks to turn back the tide of history.
So you want to kill the Good Friday Agreement?
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
No, I don't want to kill the GFA, though I suspect the DUP are indifferent.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
Nope.
The fact that the GFA is a balancing act between two very diverse communities is the issue.
if it wasn't Brexit then to quote someone sensible earlier they would "find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on" with or without Brexit.
Rubbish, the Good Friday Agreement worked in the first case because the UK and Ireland were both in the EU.
Rubbish, the GFA worked in the first case because the UK and Ireland were willing to compromise.
There is a very simple compromise that has been the obvious solution for this all along, but the problem is that until now the EU have been unwilling to compromise because they want to stick to their rules and to their "integrity". The GFA is nothing about "integrity" and one side taking all, it is all about fudge and compromise instead and the sooner the EU come to the table and accept that, the sooner all this can be resolved.
If the shoe were on the other foot and it was Ireland that had voted to leave the EU, perhaps after one of the many times they voted against EU Treaties and were told to vote again, then any UK politicians who dared to suggest that Ireland shouldn't leave the EU because it would make trade with Britain difficult would quite rightly be told to mind their own business and that Ireland doesn't have to do what Britain wants.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Traditionally CDU voters often give their second vote to the FDP, to make sure that they get into parliament where they can support a CDU led administration - you can see this in the 2017 vote for the NRW parliament:
CDU first votes 38.3% second votes 33.0% FDP first votes 8.6% second votes 12.6%
(Another explanation of these differences could be that the first vote is the tactical one, and it is FDP supporters voting for the local CDU candidate because they have a chance of winning, but see what happened in 2022).
It is the second (party) vote that is important, as it decides how many seats each party gets.
In 2022: CDU first votes 36.6% second votes 35.7% FDP first votes 5.5% second votes 5.9%
So a big part of what happened was CDU voters deciding not to lend their party votes to the FDP any more. I assume this is because federally the FDP are now in a coalition with the SPD and Greens - people tend to pay more attention to national politics, even though the state parliaments are quite important (and this was a big election NRW - is 18 million people).
Another part is probably that the FDP can attract some "protest" votes when in federal opposition that they lose when they become part of the national government. Especially when what they agree to in government is very different to their rhetoric in opposition.
Interestingly, the SPD in 2022 "lost" 2.7% from 1st to 2nd votes - but maybe not to the Greens who only increased by 0.4%. Instead the big winners were the Tierschutzpartei who got only 0.1% of 1st votes (no doubt they didn't run many candidates) but 1.1% of 2nd votes.
Any word on potential coalitions?
Most likely CDU-Green, the other option would SPD-Green-FDP (same as nationally). I'm not sure what a coalition involving both the SPD and FDP would be able to offer the Greens that it wouldn't be simpler to get from a coalition with CDU - but I don't know very much about state politics here!
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Indeed, and with the business community beginning to come out of cover and say that HMG are outright lying - the NIP is great for the economy, as per that Graun story I referenced earlier.
The Tories think they can say any old shit and people will eat it. Might work in England with newspapers happy to keep people ignorant for profit, but not in NI. Thats an extensive list of business interests who have come out with clear data showing how the economy is performing. The government and the DUP morons can't just deny this because the truth can't just be replaced like in England.
A new election be called 24 weeks after the last one if the Assembly cannot meet. The Tories changed the law to prevent "shan't" shut downs and imposition of direct rule. So either the DUP play ball or they face getting absolutely mullered in the autumn.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
You do know that the law related to NI elections was changed. Don't you?
Tricky market to bet on - it really feels like you're basically betting on what Joe Biden thinks, on a subject he is not exactly unbiased... 30% looks a bit low to me, but think it makes sense to just wait until it's clearer what Biden is going to do.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
You do know that the law related to NI elections was changed. Don't you?
The clock is ticking. 22 weeks left.
Indeed and if there's another election then the Protocol will lose it again, just like it lost the last one. And it will keep losing until the Unionists are happy.
Tricky market to bet on - it really feels like you're basically betting on what Joe Biden thinks, on a subject he is not exactly unbiased... 30% looks a bit low to me, but think it makes sense to just wait until it's clearer what Biden is going to do.
Agreed. I don't think it worth doing much before the midterms.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
I suspect Unionists who were exasperated by DUP/UUP attitudes ended up voting for Alliance, so they are represented.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The DUP oppose the Johnson Brexit because it creates an Irish Sea border and they opposed the May Brexit which would have prevented one. Seems the only Brexit on offer meeting their approval was a No Deal Brexit, the main drawback of which is a land border across Ireland. The inference is that a hard border across Ireland is in their eyes not a bug but a feature. Makes a perverse sense because a hard border in Ireland is a step away from Irish reunification just as a border in the Irish Sea is a step towards it. No chance of this rather sordid unionist fantasy coming true in practice, however, even under this government, and they really ought to realize this. The DUP, simultaneously thick and cynical. These 2 traits might seem to conflict but they do often go together.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Indeed, and with the business community beginning to come out of cover and say that HMG are outright lying - the NIP is great for the economy, as per that Graun story I referenced earlier.
The Tories think they can say any old shit and people will eat it. Might work in England with newspapers happy to keep people ignorant for profit, but not in NI. Thats an extensive list of business interests who have come out with clear data showing how the economy is performing. The government and the DUP morons can't just deny this because the truth can't just be replaced like in England.
A new election be called 24 weeks after the last one if the Assembly cannot meet. The Tories changed the law to prevent "shan't" shut downs and imposition of direct rule. So either the DUP play ball or they face getting absolutely mullered in the autumn.
I doubt it, all the DUP voters earlier this month wanted a hardline on the NIP and Donaldson's harder line now will win back even harder line Unionists lost to TUV
Tricky market to bet on - it really feels like you're basically betting on what Joe Biden thinks, on a subject he is not exactly unbiased... 30% looks a bit low to me, but think it makes sense to just wait until it's clearer what Biden is going to do.
Yep. I've got some old bets (but similar to current odds) on Biden and on Harris because 50% for ANother looked too high for me. I've also got Buttigieg, partly traded out, who I backed way back and the profit, so far, on him covers all the stakes, so I'll probably let the other bets run and see what happens.
I do have this suspicion that Biden might want to hang on if it looks like Trump's going for another go, not sure he trusts anyone else to beat Trump. Might depend on whether he is told to go. And on whether he listens... Would be more likely to step down if he had a VP who looked like a winner, I think.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
You do know that the law related to NI elections was changed. Don't you?
The clock is ticking. 22 weeks left.
Indeed and if there's another election then the Protocol will lose it again, just like it lost the last one. And it will keep losing until the Unionists are happy.
So by the majority of voters voting for parties who voted for the protocol, thats the protocol losing the election is it?
The NIP is unworkable and will be revised. But your usual position of supporting democracy seems oddly to have been thrown out in favour supporting anyone who backs your hardest Brexit position.
Be careful now. I disagree with you a lot, but your positions are usually consistent. This is inconsistent.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Indeed, and with the business community beginning to come out of cover and say that HMG are outright lying - the NIP is great for the economy, as per that Graun story I referenced earlier.
The Tories think they can say any old shit and people will eat it. Might work in England with newspapers happy to keep people ignorant for profit, but not in NI. Thats an extensive list of business interests who have come out with clear data showing how the economy is performing. The government and the DUP morons can't just deny this because the truth can't just be replaced like in England.
A new election be called 24 weeks after the last one if the Assembly cannot meet. The Tories changed the law to prevent "shan't" shut downs and imposition of direct rule. So either the DUP play ball or they face getting absolutely mullered in the autumn.
I doubt it, all the DUP voters earlier this month wanted a hardline on the NIP and Donaldson's harder line now will win back even harder line Unionists lost to TUV
That doesn't help though. TUV voters already transfer to DUP. Meanwhile. The harder line risks losing yet more UUP transfers to Alliance. We can't predict what will happen with certainty. But that is the trend. In both communities.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
I suspect Unionists who were exasperated by DUP/UUP attitudes ended up voting for Alliance, so they are represented.
The Alliance aren't a unionist party, so no they're not.
And the DUP lost votes to the TUV on the basis that the DUP weren't hardline enough, not that they weren't compromising enough.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Indeed, and with the business community beginning to come out of cover and say that HMG are outright lying - the NIP is great for the economy, as per that Graun story I referenced earlier.
The Tories think they can say any old shit and people will eat it. Might work in England with newspapers happy to keep people ignorant for profit, but not in NI. Thats an extensive list of business interests who have come out with clear data showing how the economy is performing. The government and the DUP morons can't just deny this because the truth can't just be replaced like in England.
A new election be called 24 weeks after the last one if the Assembly cannot meet. The Tories changed the law to prevent "shan't" shut downs and imposition of direct rule. So either the DUP play ball or they face getting absolutely mullered in the autumn.
I doubt it, all the DUP voters earlier this month wanted a hardline on the NIP and Donaldson's harder line now will win back even harder line Unionists lost to TUV
Surely that depends on whether they want an assembly that functions or not. The big gain in Alliance voters appears to have come from people who didn't vote in 2017.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
You do know that the law related to NI elections was changed. Don't you?
The clock is ticking. 22 weeks left.
Indeed and if there's another election then the Protocol will lose it again, just like it lost the last one. And it will keep losing until the Unionists are happy.
So by the majority of voters voting for parties who voted for the protocol, thats the protocol losing the election is it?
The NIP is unworkable and will be revised. But your usual position of supporting democracy seems oddly to have been thrown out in favour supporting anyone who backs your hardest Brexit position.
Be careful now. I disagree with you a lot, but your positions are usually consistent. This is inconsistent.
The GFA requires the consent of both communities, what part of that are you struggling to understand?
I would prefer to have FPTP as a general principle but that is not the electoral system in Northern Ireland. I recognise the electoral system they have, not the one I'd rather we have, and under their electoral system the Protocol was comprehensively defeated since 100% of elected unionists opposed it.
In order for something to proceed under power-sharing it requires the consent of both communities. The Protocol comprehensively failed to get that at the election, so it lost the election.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Sadly this is not subtle enough. (BTW I support a united Ireland, and am not pro unionist.)
To say that there has to be acceptance of the realities on all sides, and then characterise unionists as morons, thick, lying etc, and the UK government in similar terms, clouds the debate. To suggest in an NI context there is such a thing as 'the will of the people', is, sadly, a little too unsubtle as well.
I do have this suspicion that Biden might want to hang on if it looks like Trump's going for another go, not sure he trusts anyone else to beat Trump. Might depend on whether he is told to go. And on whether he listens... Would be more likely to step down if he had a VP who looked like winner, I think.
Yup, and whether Trump is running or not also affects the potency of the age issue: Some voters could definitely be persuaded that you shouldn't elect someone who's 81, but that's not a great argument coming from somebody who's 78.
All political issues can be resolved, but to do so there has to be an acceptance of the realities on hand. And in NI that is not the case.
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
Point of order, the DUP didn't "lose the election" since under the Good Friday Agreement the election isn't a First Past the Post winner-takes-all majoritarian system.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
The *DUP* think they lost the election. Power sharing was ok as long as the majority unionist population elected unionists to power. The bit that scares them is that the long-forecasted demographic shift is here.
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
Total bullshit.
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
I suspect Unionists who were exasperated by DUP/UUP attitudes ended up voting for Alliance, so they are represented.
The Alliance aren't a unionist party, so no they're not.
And the DUP lost votes to the TUV on the basis that the DUP weren't hardline enough, not that they weren't compromising enough.
So. You can't be a Unionist if you don't vote for a Unionist party? How about if you do, but transfer to another? What percentage are you if you vote Alliance and transfer to a Unionist Party? Half a Unionist?
Meanwhile. It might be instructive to read this from the UUP. The Unionists aren't a monolith.
Comments
If the Protocol is a disaster, then presumably you think the Safeguarding in A16 of the Protocol should be implemented? That is what it is there for, and it was surely wise of the Government to agree a deal that contained Safeguarding but only if they're prepared to use it.
Or is your position that the Protocol is a disaster but Safeguarding shouldn't happen because of reasons I'm not seeing?
Even Hillary Benn is now acknowledging that it is leading to difficulties, can you at least do so?
It is good Ireland is talking this morning of addressing the concerns over goods regulations and time to dial down the blame game from all sides and find a solution
If Stormont can't sit due to the application of the Protocol then why is that not a societal difficulty?
Incidentally it is demonstrably and factually leading to a diversion of trade, which is what is causing the political difficulties. Some claim that was always to be expected, well if so then the exercise of the Safeguarding should have always been expected too.
Nobody can accurately predict presidential elections years out, nobody is going to be writing one off in advance on the grounds that it's unwinnable.
Biden already watched Obama get destroyed in the mid-terms then go on to win convincingly, I can't see why he'd get disheartened by the loss that everyone expects.
The one thing I would say about the mid-terms is that if you've had a fairly catastrophic performance across the board, anyone who does win has their stature greatly enhanced. This is why I think it's worth watching Stacey Abrams: She could plausibly win Georgia with the help of Trumpists refusing to back Brian Kemp. That would give her a great story to go up against Harris if she was audacious enough to run for the next job when she'd only just got the current one.
Stormont not sitting is run-of-the-mill, sadly.
Diversion of trade isn't causing the political difficulty. Business favours the current arrangements.
The DUP losing the election is.
There are serious societal difficulties in NI but that has been the case all my lifetime. Is A16 actually causing the current ones or being used as a prop to highlight them?
The backstop was a catastrophe waiting to happen as there was no legal unilateral exit from it. No safeguarding A16 clause or majority vote to leave it. We would have been legally trapped within it with no legal way out.
The Protocol has A16 and a Stormont vote as two alternative unilateral methods to change it. That is infinitely superior in every possible way.
In order for A16 not to be invoked there must be no societal problems and no diversion of trade. Any diversion of trade or difficulties is all that is mentioned and its up to the Government to interpret that as part of their reasonable Safeguarding.
NI politics is about power. That is all.
And f*** business too.
String theory (M-theory) became so popular because the single most talented and influential figure of the past 50 years in theoretical physics convinced everyone they should be working on string theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten
Because that's precisely what the Good Friday Agreement is all about, that both communities must both be satisfied to work together and the largest party of both communities holds a veto over Stormont operating - and the DUP won the election to be the largest party of their community just as Sinn Fein won the election to be the largest of theirs (ironically which is larger of the two doesn't matter as much as which is larger within their own community).
Yes they may find something else to be intransient over, the history of Northern Ireland suggests that is almost certainly nailed on, but until we replace the Good Friday Agreement with something else what else do you propose other than keep reaching compromises one intransient dispute at a time?
https://xkcd.com/435/
Northern Ireland is prospering thanks to the unique economic advantages that the NI Protocol gives it - access to both UK and EU markets. Manufacturing is expanding and food inflation is lower. Of course all of this is intensely damaging to the UK government and DUP since it illustrates that Northern Ireland is prospering as a result of it being spared the worst impact of Brexit and integrating more closely with the Republic and the EU single market - and hence puts into sharp relief what a disaster Brexit is for GB.
The Northern Irish population know that the protocol is working to protect them which is why most of them voted for parties that support it. The government is now proposing to undermine those economic advantages simply because they are embarrassing to them and the useful idiots in the DUP. Shameful stuff.
And Boris-haters in the media will say what they say and the EU may believe them, but that’s not the government’s fault.
Basically the issue remains that the EU Commission has fetishised their rules over letting the RoI and UK work out a compromise
The key issues this creates are wholly disproportionate levels of border checks, and a refusal to pragmatically look at monitoring regimes. It would be reasonable to have high levels of checks if there were serious issues around smuggling but data monitoring, and police support could be used to mitigate these risks. As noted by Benn there are some goods that quite frankly need not be checked more than routinely, and any border checks should be targeted, and frankly intelligence led.
The EU needs to take a much more pragmatic approach, and the government and its stooges like Rees Mogg need to shut up about burning the protocol, and both do more about De-escalating diplomatic disagreements. To be fair to the government they have always advocated a pragmatic approach, and I think there needs to be a significant shift in the EU position to recognise the equality in the negotiation otherwise they are endangering the GFA.
The same needs to happen now. That requires pragmatism and compromise, of which the obvious solution is as it has been for five years no alignment, no border anywhere, as even Benn is now proposing recognise equivalence instead and deal with smuggling if it happens in a tactful manner that doesn't threaten security or the GFA.
This seems to me to be the main benefit of the protocol.
I'm just trying to remember what event of the last six years, by its very nature, made the GFA much more difficult to sustain. Brexit, I think?
CON: 34% (-)
LAB: 37% (+1)
LDEM: 12% (+2)
GRN: 7% (-1)
via @OpiniumResearch
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/03/what-do-the-latest-polls-say-britain-elects/
a. a unified theory of physics
b. a resolution of NI politics
c. the heat death of the universe
(you can of course add a popular resolution of UK-EU and NI-rUK trading rules and a female Labour leader to that list....)
I was really hoping she’d get pregnant so I could call it the Battle of the Bulge.
Remnd me, which group dislikes each other the most; DUP vs UUP or DUP vs SF?
The public are just so disenchanted at present
The Tories don't recognise that what they signed is directly contrary to their promises made to business and unionists. The DUP don't recognise that they just lost the election. And that a majority of voters backed the protocol. Neither recognise the business reality that the protocol puts NI in a golden position of a foot in both camps hence business performance being so strong.
This cannot be fixed because the Tories and DUP are lying to each other from a position of pig ignorance. Scrapping the protocol overturns the will of the people. Refusing to participate in the assembly removes democracy and threatens the GFA itself.
Yes it is preposterous that we need a license and customs forms to send stuff from one part of the UK to another - and even more preposterous that the government who proposed and implemented such a thing claims to be dumfounded that this has happened. But we are where we are. And that place is planet delusion.
The sad thing for Unionism is that its elected morons will keep saying "Don't Look Up", the mess will rumble on for another 5 months and then we get another election where this time the DUP get overtaken by Alliance. And then we need a revised framework for the Assembly as the DUP will have led Unionism into third place.
I worked at the Pub in Winterbourne Stoke in the mid 90's and the owner moved out, so convinced was he that the bypass was coming, That's 30 years of trade he missed out on so far...
I really don't understand it at all, as the cost to recruit and train a new employee must exceed the cost of giving decent pay rises.
Perhaps they have done a cost benefit analysis on it and concluded most people will simply stick it out at their jobs rather than look for a new one. But surely even then they will be the less motivated ones...
Keep your own "ego" folder into which you stash any praise or congratulations you receive, and note any minor successes you have had. Keep a copy (possibly on paper) at home as well. This is for when you need cheering up but also for when you need to apply for a new position, internal or external, at short notice. Keep two versions of your cv up to date for the same reason: one inward-facing; one for outside jobs.
The fact that the GFA is a balancing act between two very diverse communities is the issue.
if it wasn't Brexit then to quote someone sensible earlier they would "find something else to be intransigent about. That's what they do, and will continue to do with knobs on" with or without Brexit.
And always keep a paper copy of every annual/periodical review final report, disciplinary review (even and esp if one is the one doing the disciplining), etc. (this also in case of trouble). Some of this may have to be kept at work alone for obvious confidentiality reasons.
Obvs telling GG to suck eggs, but I'll say one more thing from personal experience, it can be surprising looking back and finding how much one's mood is coloured by the immediate current situation.
Traditionally CDU voters often give their second vote to the FDP, to make sure that they get into parliament where they can support a CDU led administration - you can see this in the 2017 vote for the NRW parliament:
CDU first votes 38.3% second votes 33.0%
FDP first votes 8.6% second votes 12.6%
(Another explanation of these differences could be that the first vote is the tactical one, and it is FDP supporters voting for the local CDU candidate because they have a chance of winning, but see what happened in 2022).
It is the second (party) vote that is important, as it decides how many seats each party gets.
In 2022:
CDU first votes 36.6% second votes 35.7%
FDP first votes 5.5% second votes 5.9%
So a big part of what happened was CDU voters deciding not to lend their party votes to the FDP any more. I assume this is because federally the FDP are now in a coalition with the SPD and Greens - people tend to pay more attention to national politics, even though the state parliaments are quite important (and this was a big election NRW - is 18 million people).
Another part is probably that the FDP can attract some "protest" votes when in federal opposition that they lose when they become part of the national government. Especially when what they agree to in government is very different to their rhetoric in opposition.
Interestingly, the SPD in 2022 "lost" 2.7% from 1st to 2nd votes - but maybe not to the Greens who only increased by 0.4%. Instead the big winners were the Tierschutzpartei who got only 0.1% of 1st votes (no doubt they didn't run many candidates) but 1.1% of 2nd votes.
Under the GFA which party comes first or second overall matters far, far, far less than which party finishes first within each community - and the DUP won the election within the Unionist community, which didn't always seem guaranteed.
Scrapping the Protocol doesn't overturn the will of the people, that is something you can only say because you are being deliberately pig ignorant. Under the GFA to proceed needs the consent of both communities. The Protocol well and truly lost the election just gone on that basis since it won the consent as far as I know of no elected MLAs from the Unionist community. Therefore under the terms of the GFA, the cross-partisan support it requires has failed and the Unionist community is entirely within their rights under the GFA to shut down Stormont until the Protocol is fixed to their liking.
That is how power sharing works, that is the GFA in action and the partisanly pro-EU side which sought to weaponise the GFA to seek further alignment have failed to understand that power sharing means both communities have power, not just the community that wants free trade across the land border.
However. Some of it is perhaps a NOTA preference rather than Green per se. Difficult to say where that bit is, nor how it will break at a GE.
Lib Dem too.
There is a very simple compromise that has been the obvious solution for this all along, but the problem is that until now the EU have been unwilling to compromise because they want to stick to their rules and to their "integrity". The GFA is nothing about "integrity" and one side taking all, it is all about fudge and compromise instead and the sooner the EU come to the table and accept that, the sooner all this can be resolved.
If the shoe were on the other foot and it was Ireland that had voted to leave the EU, perhaps after one of the many times they voted against EU Treaties and were told to vote again, then any UK politicians who dared to suggest that Ireland shouldn't leave the EU because it would make trade with Britain difficult would quite rightly be told to mind their own business and that Ireland doesn't have to do what Britain wants.
Well the same is true in reverse.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/piers-morgan-slams-ukraine-s-eurovision-victory/ar-AAXiwG1?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bbba533e6442403091e93b4e57c7843b
As for the protocol this has been turned into the unionist line in the sand. And was beaten by all the people who voted for parties who said "its fine".
Of course we will need a way through this impasse. But lets not dodge the bullet - majority unionism in NI is over. If they refuse to accept the result then another election is forced. And they will lose even harder next time.
The power-sharing agreement assumed two main blocks - unionism and republicanism. We now have a third block, and if that keeps advancing we will need to revise the agreement as it no longer works. No wonder the DUP are so scared. This is the End Of Things.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-15
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-61422304
In my day, teachers did it. But we should not pass up an excuse to rewatch the Armstrong & Miller invigilator sketches:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufc4WHODaRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_0ab88vqRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBA0C029JLw
The election wasn't even due yet, it was only held because of the resignation of the First Minister over the Protocol. So to claim "power sharing was OK" before is total unmitigated bollocks, the plug had already been pulled when they were first and it remains pulled still because the issue still isn't resolved.
The unionist community against the Protocol won 100% of the seats won by the unionist community. So the Protocol was defeated in the ballot box under the terms of the GFA, unionists saying "its fine" didn't win even a single MLA. So your repeated pretensions of "its fine" is you saying "don't look up" to what actually happened.
PS unionists remain the biggest community so the idea they're going to be the third community is your own wishcasting. Unionists won 37 MLAs, nationalists only won 35.
A new election be called 24 weeks after the last one if the Assembly cannot meet. The Tories changed the law to prevent "shan't" shut downs and imposition of direct rule. So either the DUP play ball or they face getting absolutely mullered in the autumn.
The clock is ticking. 22 weeks left.
I do have this suspicion that Biden might want to hang on if it looks like Trump's going for another go, not sure he trusts anyone else to beat Trump. Might depend on whether he is told to go. And on whether he listens... Would be more likely to step down if he had a VP who looked like a winner, I think.
The NIP is unworkable and will be revised. But your usual position of supporting democracy seems oddly to have been thrown out in favour supporting anyone who backs your hardest Brexit position.
Be careful now. I disagree with you a lot, but your positions are usually consistent. This is inconsistent.
TUV voters already transfer to DUP.
Meanwhile. The harder line risks losing yet more UUP transfers to Alliance.
We can't predict what will happen with certainty. But that is the trend.
In both communities.
And the DUP lost votes to the TUV on the basis that the DUP weren't hardline enough, not that they weren't compromising enough.
I would prefer to have FPTP as a general principle but that is not the electoral system in Northern Ireland. I recognise the electoral system they have, not the one I'd rather we have, and under their electoral system the Protocol was comprehensively defeated since 100% of elected unionists opposed it.
In order for something to proceed under power-sharing it requires the consent of both communities. The Protocol comprehensively failed to get that at the election, so it lost the election.
To say that there has to be acceptance of the realities on all sides, and then characterise unionists as morons, thick, lying etc, and the UK government in similar terms, clouds the debate. To suggest in an NI context there is such a thing as 'the will of the people', is, sadly, a little too unsubtle as well.
How about if you do, but transfer to another?
What percentage are you if you vote Alliance and transfer to a Unionist Party?
Half a Unionist?
Meanwhile. It might be instructive to read this from the UUP. The Unionists aren't a monolith.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/uup-peer-sir-reg-empey-slams-anti-protocol-rally-speakers-3656865